Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[PurpleFloyd]

I spent all fall driving the Minnesota river valley from Mankato to dawson. I have to admit that I saw next to no deer all fall but lots of coyotes and turkeys as well as eagles. Been in the Brookings and Olivia areas lately but went through the valley again yesterday at dusk and saw piles of deer. On 29 just on the other side of the yellow medicine river bridge a very nice 10 pt buck crossed the road ahead of me. I could see it was limping and it stopped at the base of the hill and gave me a good look. There was a broken arrow shaft in his upper leg and the leg was visibly swollen so I imagine he will end up as coyote food in a few weeks or less.

[Farmsfulltime]

Don't count on that buck as down and out yet ,, those are awfully tough animals 20 years ago or so family member car hit a six pointer killed got tag from the sheriff hung it pulled hide , healthy cutting up found a full broad head fully imbedded in the upper shoulder completely healed over had to be at least one year old wound . Had a tree legged doe in the neighborhood here she could run like the wind couldn't tell her from the rest unless you were close and seen the missing leg .

[O.T.C.]

Maybe eagle food the way you were talking eagles, hopefully he makes it and turns into a giant non-typical next year. We got a 3 legged buck in 1984, 15 points, drop tine, could tell a barbed wire most likely wrapped tightly around the leg at the knee and it just eventually fell off, he was running like he had 4 wheels, but you could tell there was something unusual. The wind really killed my hunting more so then a lack of deer, when it gets to a certain point where I'm at they just don't move during shooting light. Then they peg your scent on top of it and it gets really thin for deer sightings if you overhunt your spot and it doesn't take much pressure to change things especially if a 4.5 or older buck is your target. You need to get him on the first day you sit that stand I think and if you have 20 mph winds good luck, he aint gonna make that mistake very often. Now if you own the bedding, water, food source and they stay on your soil 24/7 disregard, you have a quality set up to not intrude or to hunt it wisely and that chance will happen.

[PurpleFloyd]

Don't count on that buck as down and out yet ,, those are awfully tough animals 20 years ago or so family member car hit a six pointer killed got tag from the sheriff hung it pulled hide , healthy cutting up found a full broad head fully imbedded in the upper shoulder completely healed over had to be at least one year old wound . Had a tree legged doe in the neighborhood here she could run like the wind couldn't tell her from the rest unless you were close and seen the missing leg .

I have personally taken 2 bucks and a doe that had arrows broken off in them. Two in the back and one in a leg.But they all moved good. This one was not moving well and the leg was visibly swollen and the infection will determine mortality more than mobility.

[smsmith]

Looks like 180,000 is the new goal for total deer harvests. Pretty much what we took last year (you know...the year our harvest resulted in pretty good hunter uproar which then led to DNR/MDHA listening sessions)

http://m.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/287426211.html?section=%2F

Looks like the link doesn't work. Just copy and paste the url into a browser window

[DaveT]

Looks like 180,000 is the new goal for total deer harvests. Pretty much what we took last year (you know...the year our harvest resulted in pretty good hunter uproar which then led to DNR/MDHA listening sessions)

http://m.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/287426211.html?section=%2F

Looks like the link doesn't work. Just copy and paste the url into a browser window

Landwehr says this about the deer harvest.

"Statewide, what should our harvest be? If the 130,000 we harvested this year is too low, and the 210,000 of a few years back is too high, what should it be? … I think somewhere between the two. Maybe something around 180,000 is a middle ground for average harvest."

The following is from a 2012 article quoting Lou C.

http://samcook.areavoices.com/2012/01/19/minnesota-dnr-will-reassess-deer-population-goals/

In many areas, deer densities are down about 25 percent from the early 2000s, said Lou Cornicelli, big game program coordinator for the DNR. Cornicelli had thought that harvests of about 200,000 deer might be the “sweet spot” for Minnesotans. Now he’s not so sure.

“We took 194,000 two years ago and 207,000 last year,” Cornicelli said. “Now we’ve got a bit of angst shooting 192,000. So maybe it (an ideal goal) is 210,000 or 220,000.”

This is the same strategy they use when counting deer, don't like the numbers you used 2 years ago, just change them. Getting some heat for your mismanagement of wildlife? Have the local outdoor media lob you some softballs with no follow up or fact checking.

[delcecchi]

Strib intervies

You really should try to read the hardcopy of the interview in the paper.

Also he says this year's harvest was 130k, not 180k. The 180k was thrown out as a possible objective for the average harvest.

[smsmith]

Strib intervies

You really should try to read the hardcopy of the interview in the paper.

Also he says this year's harvest was 130k, not 180k. The 180k was thrown out as a possible objective for the average harvest.

I don't recall stating that this year's harvest was 180K...what I stated is that Landwehr is suggesting 180K should be the new goal for future total harvests.

Meanwhile, 3 years ago Lou C. stated our herd had already been cut by 25% from the peak years (even though the '05-'07 stakeholder process called for a 9% reduction) and that we should be aiming for total harvests around 210-220K...

3 years...2 different DNR employees...a loss of 30-40K in what our total future harvests should be.

3 years from now...this year's harvest will be the "new" future total harvest...

Just keep letting the DNR do whatever they want without fact checking or accountability...great system

[PurpleFloyd]

So,

we have not harvested 200k deer in several years and even with declining harvests at a level that is tens of thousands lower than 200k somehow you are proposing that merely changing a modeling formula will lead to a situation where we can perpetually harvest 200k year over year?

I am very interested in hearing this. Especially in regards to how this can be done regardless of the weather patterns.

[delcecchi]

He said in the dead tree interview, they were lowering the herd after negotiation with various stake holders and then had two bad winters. There is now a new round of stakeholder negotiations and it sounds like it will be by district. Was the previous one on a statewide basis?

The interview printed in the paper was much longer that what is online.

[delcecchi]

I don't recall stating that this year's harvest was 180K...what I stated is that Landwehr is suggesting 180K should be the new goal for future total harvests.

(snip)

Sorry. I must have misunderstood it when you said "Looks like 180,000 is the new goal for total deer harvests. Pretty much what we took last year ..."

[smsmith]

Sorry. I must have misunderstood it when you said "Looks like 180,000 is the new goal for total deer harvests. Pretty much what we took last year ..."

Sorry...last year as in 2013...not 2014..still not up to speed on 2015

[smsmith]

Lou C. states in January 2012 (before the two bad winters of '12-'13 and '13-'14) that the herd has been reduced in much of the state by 25%...stakeholders agreed to a 9% reduction in '05-'07...Lou states in January of '12 we should be building the herd back to the point where we can take 210-220K a year...Landwehr states January of '15 we should be building the herd back to the point where we can take 180K a year....

Sure..no reason to have any concerns about how our DNR is managing the herd, the models they use...or anything else. Just give 'em a free pass with zero accountability for performance...or the lack thereof.

Winters of '12-'13 and '13-'14 certainly played a role in where we are now...but we were already well under the herd numbers the stakeholders agreed to before those winters hit.

[creepworm]

So,

we have not harvested 200k deer in several years and even with declining harvests at a level that is tens of thousands lower than 200k somehow you are proposing that merely changing a modeling formula will lead to a situation where we can perpetually harvest 200k year over year?

I am very interested in hearing this. Especially in regards to how this can be done regardless of the weather patterns.

Doesn't register as making sense, does it?

[NWKR]

So,

we have not harvested 200k deer in several years and even with declining harvests at a level that is tens of thousands lower than 200k somehow you are proposing that merely changing a modeling formula will lead to a situation where we can perpetually harvest 200k year over year?

I am very interested in hearing this. Especially in regards to how this can be done regardless of the weather patterns.

I must be having some reading comprehension problems, who said the bit about changing a modeling formula?

[PurpleFloyd]

So,

we have not harvested 200k deer in several years and even with declining harvests at a level that is tens of thousands lower than 200k somehow you are proposing that merely changing a modeling formula will lead to a situation where we can perpetually harvest 200k year over year?

I am very interested in hearing this. Especially in regards to how this can be done regardless of the weather patterns.

[SmellEsox]

It actually would be nice to know if your model was accurate. Wouldn't you agree you would like to have as accurate a model as possible before you start giving out 5 antlerless permits per hunter again?

[PurpleFloyd]

Lou C. states in January 2012 (before the two bad winters of '12-'13 and '13-'14) that the herd has been reduced in much of the state by 25%...stakeholders agreed to a 9% reduction in '05-'07...Lou states in January of '12 we should be building the herd back to the point where we can take 210-220K a year...Landwehr states January of '15 we should be building the herd back to the point where we can take 180K a year....

Sure..no reason to have any concerns about how our DNR is managing the herd, the models they use...or anything else. Just give 'em a free pass with zero accountability for performance...or the lack thereof.

Winters of '12-'13 and '13-'14 certainly played a role in where we are now...but we were already well under the herd numbers the stakeholders agreed to before those winters hit.

You still didn't answer the fundamental question which is how do you propose that they get the herd to be able to sustain that harvest level year over year when we have been harvesting substantially fewer deer than that for years and yet the population is dropping, not increasing. And it is decreasing over the upper midwest and not just in the state of Minnesota even though other states are doing exactly what you have been proposing that we do.

What is your solution?

[PurpleFloyd]

It actually would be nice to know if your model was accurate. Wouldn't you agree you would like to have as accurate a model as possible before you start giving out 5 antlerless permits per hunter again?

Define accurate. There is no reasonable way to get any model into the future with any type of accuracy because nature incorporates too many variables into the equation to every be able to predict anything with any certainty. If you expect that your are expecting something that just isn't possible. If you accept a degree of variation that would allow you to predict within the range that could be expected due to natural factors, the variation will be so great as to not be any more useful than the SWAG method.

What can and should be focused on is allowing the habitat that is under public control to grow up to provide the best habitat it is capable of producing without major human intervention. This would be a much better bang for the buck and would ensure that when conditions are right, that the deer would have the best chance of having the food and shelter they need to bring every generation through the seasons.

As to the 5 permit statement, the only number that matters in the end is total harvest and not number of permits issued. Whether one person takes 5 or they increase the normal permit number so 5 individuals can take one you are offering a specific number of permits. I personally would not support anyone getting more than one permit so I am not in any way advocating it, but in the end they issue X number of permits and who gets them and how many each get is just a distribution issue.

[delcecchi]

Landwehr states January of '15 we should be building the herd back to the point where we can take 180K a year....

(snip)

[smsmith]

Well..since hunters took around 180K in 2013 and the results were a large uproar and MDHA/DNR listening sessions...I'm thinking Landwehr may be a bit out of touch with what hunters would consider "too low"

[creepworm]

An extremely large uproar. So much of an uproar less than .02 percent of the deer hunters signed a petition.

[Farmsfulltime]

An uproar from the vocal minority, Cry wolf over deer numbers long enough and no one will hear you sooner than later

[Farmsfulltime]

Purple ,,, I see your logic where are the deer to come from at those numbers year after year

[DaveT]

An extremely large uproar. So much of an uproar less than .02 percent of the deer hunters signed a petition.

And if we use your math, since only 5 of you have ever voiced any opposition to the audit on this forum, supporters of the audit outnumber non-supporters by over 100 to 1.

That's overwhelming support in my opinion.